Possibilities of use of budgeting in public finances management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Possibilities of use of budgeting in public finances managementPublic Financial Management is becoming a major way of economic stabilization and sustainable economic growth.Because of this, there is a need to improve the efficiency of budget funds usage.This goal can be gained by a program-oriented budgeting (budgeting for results) which substantiates the link between state budget expenditures and planned results from the use of financial resources.The concept of program-oriented budgeting is not changeless.It supposes different ways of establishing a link between public expenditure and meaningful results for society.The method of program-oriented budgeting can be used for planning costs state authorities, local self-government and individual spending units (ministries, budgetary institutions, public enterprises, etc.).One of the elements of budgeting is the use of contract forms of financing, which allows to allocate budgetary resources agencies and organizations depending on their performance.The key point is the definition of direct and final activities of ministries and departments.When planning the budget expenditure one should use quantitative analysis which is based on the method of "cost-benefit".With instrument allows to analyze alternatives by comparing the direct and indirect benefits for society.The experience of countries that use the budgeting of public finances (Canada, USA, Australia, Netherlands) demonstrates that this method can improve approaches to improve the validity of decisions about directions of public expenditures, as well as an opportunity to reduce costs without reducing government programs.Thus, the transition from the management of budget expenditures to performance management and efficiency of public spending depends on the definition set goals and expected results.The main objective is to provide better public services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".